A 64-year-old medical professor has been sentenced to four years in prison for killing his son during a confrontation in which the son attacked him with a weapon.
According to the Supreme Court, the ruling was finalized on November 1, confirming the lower court's decision regarding the murder charge against the professor, referred to as A.
The incident occurred in September of last year when A's son, in his 30s, came to his apartment, assaulted him, and threatened him. During the struggle, A fatally stabbed his son with a broken dish.
The son, referred to as B, had a history of delinquency during his school years and had previously assaulted both his mother and sister. This strained the relationship between A and B, leading to limited contact after A's wife began sending B living expenses.
Following the death of A's wife, B expressed resentment, believing that his mother's death was due to A's actions and sought to claim her inheritance. On the day of the incident, B, after drinking, came to A's home and threatened him for about an hour, stating he would kill him. After a brief lull, B resumed his assault, prompting A to defend himself, resulting in B's death.
During the trial, A claimed he did not intend to kill and argued that his actions fell under 'non-punishable excessive self-defense' according to criminal law. However, the court rejected this defense.
The first trial court noted that A had actively attacked B and had acted beyond reasonable self-defense. It emphasized that as a medical professor, A would have been aware that his actions could lead to B's death.
The court also interpreted A's statement, 'If I hadn't killed my son, I could have been killed,' as indicative of a motive for murder, making it difficult to accept that he lacked intent to kill.
Nonetheless, considering B's long history of verbal abuse, threats, and violence against A, as well as A's role as a father who had supported B, the court deemed the act impulsive and sentenced A to four years in prison.
The second trial upheld the first trial's ruling, and the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court's decision.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.